Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KVSJ_(AM) References

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

KVSJ (AM)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; it might seem like it, but KVSJ has no entry in the FCC database, and the article's text declares it a Part 15 AM station. To the layman, this basically means it uses something like a talking house transmitter (used to give info about a house from a real estate company) to push out a radio format to a limited geographical area, but is unlicensed, not meeting WP:BROADCAST.

Additionally, I have found other articles created by Martini Lewis X ( talk · contribs) in the same general area also using false call letters and Part 15 transmitters to transmit non-licensed AM and FM stations and am including them within this nomination (note the user's history; they have a long line of fictional and low-range unlicensed station articles being taken to PROD and AfD and being successfully deleted);

Note: Shaunlovesradio2017 ( talk · contribs) has been disrupting this nomination with several confusing page moves (see each article history), along with db-author tags to SPEEDY these pages although on the surface they were not the creator; I declined them to let the seven days go through, but I'm also opening up an SPI to see if them and MLX are related. Nate • ( chatter) 00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, as for a few exceptions, Part 15 stations are not notable. These appear to be somebody's hobby stations; there are no 3rd party sources referencing these stations, which also violate WP:NPOV; at least one of the stations is noted in the article as being OFF THE AIR! Stereorock ( talk) 18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete. Concur with nom and with User:Stereorock. "Part 15 stations", if they are really adhering to Part 15 regs, can rarely be heard beyond a quarter-mile radius; a part of a city block is more common. About the only way they will ever have WP-notability is if they are running illegal power (i.e. not complying with Part 15) and there is press coverage of resulting enforcement actions by the FCC. Their supposed call letters are of course not FCC-issued (not to them, anyway; the same call may have been previously used by a real licensed station) and the whole "station" is just someone's hobby. It's like having an article on the "JEH Railroad", that being a model train setup in my attic. The quintessential example of something someone just made up one day (including the "call letters"). And no, such articles aren't acceptable under the supposed "station"'s "brand" either. The article title isn't the point. Lack of notability is. Jeh ( talk) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete all; as previously mentioned, any theoretical presumption of notability for broadcast stations applies solely to stations that have a broadcast license — not Part 15 stations. It's certainly theoretically possible for such a station to have the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline — but I don't think such sources even exist for any of these stations. I'll also note for the record that since this nomination was created, two of the articles have been moved, in both cases by Shaunlovesradio2017 ( talk · contribs): KVSJ (AM) to Classic Country 1620am, and KQVN to Oldies 106.1 FM. Both articles have been moved several other times by that user prior to this nomination as well, along with numerous apparent changes in the stations' format — and, again, not one source about any of this. (I'll also add that the Internet-only "Hot 923 The Beat" doesn't appear to be related to the two Part 15s in Thousand Oaks.) -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete all: Part 15s and Pirates are not notable UNLESS they have, as Wcquidditch said above "sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline", and really only one pirate/Part 15 station with sufficient coverage to meet GNG comes to mind and that's Radio Caroline (pirate), with Radio Sausalito (a VERY cool Part 15) trailing very far behind in second. None of the others even come close. The rest have gotta go as they do not meet NMEDIA, RS, or GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:13 on February 2, 2018 (UTC)

Delete all. Part 15 stations are not automatically deemed notable per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist, but these show no evidence of reliable source coverage about any of them to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 20:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.